This message is far longer than wisdom dictates. For that, I apologise.
At least I've avoided adding unnecessarily to the flood of messages.
Karl,
On 19/04/2012 10:55 AM, Karl Auer wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-04-19 at 09:48 +1000, David Boxall wrote:
> ...
>> You're clearly passionate about battery-powered vehicles (BPVs).
>
> Is passionate bad?
> ...
Is it necessarily good?
On 20/04/2012 12:06 PM, Karl Auer wrote:
> ...
> [3] "Using waste" is an oxymoron. Anything that can be used becomes
> not-waste, ...
Interesting point. One potential feedstock for algal biofuels is sewage.
In my area, sewage is supposedly treated to the appropriate standard. We
still have a watercourse that regularly turns an alarming pea-soup
green. Most solids end up in a State Forest. It's supposed to be safe,
but the area's fenced. I'd much rather see it used to produce transport
fuel. Adding bioreactors to the treatment process would not take up any
more land than the works occupy at present. With luck, it would reduce
the nutrient pollution (which officially doesn't happen) - and we might
be able to remove that fence.
The Third World is where it gets interesting. Sewage is a real problem;
improper disposal leads to disease and shortens lives. If its value
increases, the First World would have an incentive to gift sewerage
systems (bioreactors included).
Maybe it's idealism (or my well-developed sense of the ridiculous), but
I'd rather support a technology with the potential to improve lives than
one which history has shown to blight them.
On 20/04/2012 3:22 PM, Karl Auer wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-04-20 at 13:25 +1000, Marghanita da Cruz wrote:
>> Before pinning all your hopes on electric cars
>
> Argh! I don't "pin all my hopes on electric cars"! That's a total
> misrepresentation.
> ...
Your behaviour is that of a True Believer. Your faith, it seems, blinds
you at times.
For most people, short range and long charging times are killers. Living
in a rural area, that's true for me as well. My primary concerns,
however, are environmental. End to end, cradle to grave, taking into
account production, use and recycling of fuel, batteries and vehicles, I
see biofuels as less damaging to the environment and human wellbeing
than batteries.
On 20/04/2012 8:39 PM, Karl Auer wrote:
> ...
> The cost of running an EV is way lower than the cost of running an
> FFV. Quite apart from the hugely lower fuel costs, the maintenance is
> simpler, cheaper and required less often. EVs are generally smaller
> and lighter, meaning less damaging to roads, less damaging when they
> hit something, and easier to park.
> ...
Don't count on your toxic techno-bauble being cheap to own. According to
local industry contacts, vehicle manufacturers see battery power as
highly profitable for them. That profit has to come from somewhere. In
conventional vehicles, fuel generally constitutes less than 20% of
running costs.
I haven't heard of any recommendations for full-body protection when
servicing conventional vehicles. Hazardous work quite rightly attracts
higher remuneration. Someone has to pay those costs. Don't count on
servicing being cheap.
In the event of an accident involving battery-powered vehicles, you'd
best pray for the speedy arrival of a hazmat team. You might rather come
into contact with acid than petrol or diesel, but what about some of the
other toxic battery technologies?
Don't lead-acid batteries weigh a bit?
On 20/04/2012 9:11 PM, Karl Auer wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-04-20 at 19:42 +1000, David Boxall wrote:
>>> ... all of which are AT LEAST a decade away, and more probably two
>>> or three decades away. ...
>> Nonsense.
>
> "Nonsense", as a counter-argument, really doesn't cut it.
> ...
Sorry about that. I have limited tolerance for True Believers. My gag
reflex tends to trigger when they feign ignorance.
As I mentioned earlier, industry and the military demonstrate the true
state of affairs. Biofuel technology - in particular, algal biofuels -
are ready to go now. Being direct competitors for fossil fuels, there
isn't the economic incentive for them at the moment. The military and
industry (at least) realise that, as fossil fuel prices rise, biofuels
can and will take over.
We'll never run out of fossil fuels. The price will just keep rising
until alternatives are more attractive. If we want to change the
equation, it's a simple case of penalising fossil fuels or subsidising
biofuels - or both.
Several times, you've asserted that battery-powered vehicles are a
solution that's practical here and now. The same has been said of
nuclear power. Both are presented as solutions to one set of problems,
but will inevitably create another (arguably worse) set.
Even if I could drive 500 kilometres on a charge, then recharge in less
than 15 minutes, I wouldn't have a battery-powered vehicle. Despite my
best efforts, I've not found a battery technology that doesn't have too
many downsides.
As I said, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
--
David Boxall | The more that wise people learn
| The more they come to appreciate
http://david.boxall.id.au | How much they don't know.
--Confucius